Easy K's hypo?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bleedcubbieblue
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:20 pm

Easy K's hypo?

Postby bleedcubbieblue » Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:04 pm

Say Fido walks into a store to purchase some dog food. Fido picks up a bag and brings it up to the counter. As Fido puts the bag down on the counter, it bursts open. Fido decides not to buy the bag. If the store files a suit under K, is there a K, and if so, who wins?

Younger Abstention
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby Younger Abstention » Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:57 pm

bleedcubbieblue wrote:Say Fido walks into a store to purchase some dog food. Fido picks up a bag and brings it up to the counter. As Fido puts the bag down on the counter, it bursts open. Fido decides not to buy the bag. If the store files a suit under K, is there a K, and if so, who wins?


There is no K. And look at the sophistication of the parties.

Eco
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby Eco » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:14 am

First, there is no contract, and even if there was, I'm pretty sure under the implied warranty of merchantability the only guy whose fucked is actually the seller, lol. Assuming dogs can enter into contracts.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby Cupidity » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:34 am

Sounds like an awesome torts hypo to me.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby BarbellDreams » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:36 pm

Things bought at stores dont make K's (assuming no warranty or other future obligations from either party), they are instantaneous exchanges.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby gwuorbust » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:17 pm

BarbellDreams wrote:Things bought at stores dont make K's (assuming no warranty or other future obligations from either party), they are instantaneous exchanges.


you're forgetting the implied warranty of merchantability, brah.

Eco
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby Eco » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:06 pm

^ +1. Also its a "transaction for the sale of goods" which falls under the U.C.C., therefore all the same rules. Biggest claim in this hypo would be the implied warranty of merchantability.

User avatar
YourCaptain
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby YourCaptain » Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:02 am

bleedcubbieblue wrote:Say Fido walks into a store to purchase some dog food. Fido picks up a bag and brings it up to the counter. As Fido puts the bag down on the counter, it bursts open. Fido decides not to buy the bag. If the store files a suit under K, is there a K, and if so, who wins?

Store would have to file for trespass/conversion, not breach of contract.

....and I took K's last semester, but you can't sue on an IWM if they don't purchase it

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby gwuorbust » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:31 pm

YourCaptain wrote:
bleedcubbieblue wrote:Say Fido walks into a store to purchase some dog food. Fido picks up a bag and brings it up to the counter. As Fido puts the bag down on the counter, it bursts open. Fido decides not to buy the bag. If the store files a suit under K, is there a K, and if so, who wins?

Store would have to file for trespass/conversion, not breach of contract.

....and I took K's last semester, but you can't sue on an IWM if they don't purchase it


1. a store is held to be giving a general license to the public to enter, so a trespass action would fail. as for conversion, since Fido was not taking the dog-food before he broke the bag, he never claim possession of it in and was simply going up to pay. because he could have put it back at any time, I think that the court would find he did not have possession. to find possession in this situation would be akin to saying that everyone who picks up a good to buy in a store has committed conversion, a standard the court is not willing to adopt I am sure.

I think this would come down to if Fido was negligent or not. The store let's ppl pick up their own goods. if they didn't want to risk goods getting spoiled then they could have taken other methods (have professionals fetch the goods?). The risk of loss should pass onto the deep-pockets of the store, unless fido was negligent in the situation in which case I think the store wins on the basis of property damage.

of course, Fido could counter that store had a duty to mitigate losses. if they threw the bag away Fido could have an argument that the bag could have been taped up and sold for a discount. If Fido was negligent, he is likely only responsible for retail value of bag - mitigated value - cost avoided (credit card swipe fee?).

User avatar
YourCaptain
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby YourCaptain » Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:53 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
YourCaptain wrote:
bleedcubbieblue wrote:Say Fido walks into a store to purchase some dog food. Fido picks up a bag and brings it up to the counter. As Fido puts the bag down on the counter, it bursts open. Fido decides not to buy the bag. If the store files a suit under K, is there a K, and if so, who wins?

Store would have to file for trespass/conversion, not breach of contract.

....and I took K's last semester, but you can't sue on an IWM if they don't purchase it


1. a store is held to be giving a general license to the public to enter, so a trespass action would fail. as for conversion, since Fido was not taking the dog-food before he broke the bag, he never claim possession of it in and was simply going up to pay. because he could have put it back at any time, I think that the court would find he did not have possession. to find possession in this situation would be akin to saying that everyone who picks up a good to buy in a store has committed conversion, a standard the court is not willing to adopt I am sure.

I think this would come down to if Fido was negligent or not. The store let's ppl pick up their own goods. if they didn't want to risk goods getting spoiled then they could have taken other methods (have professionals fetch the goods?). The risk of loss should pass onto the deep-pockets of the store, unless fido was negligent in the situation in which case I think the store wins on the basis of property damage.

of course, Fido could counter that store had a duty to mitigate losses. if they threw the bag away Fido could have an argument that the bag could have been taped up and sold for a discount. If Fido was negligent, he is likely only responsible for retail value of bag - mitigated value - cost avoided (credit card swipe fee?).


trespass to chattels buddy

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby gwuorbust » Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:38 pm

YourCaptain wrote:
trespass to chattels buddy


I actually spent like 5 minutes looking up property damage torts on google. I remember seeing trespass to chattels in my E&E but we didn't cover that in my torts.

but I think trespass to chattels would fail as well because as I said, the store gives you a license to enter and pick up their shit and carry it around. If they didn't want you touching their stuff, then they could hire someone to collect the goods out for you(think Autozone style, if you've ever been there). or is there a court case that says otherwise?

Eco
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Easy K's hypo?

Postby Eco » Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:14 pm

Well yeah there is no contract, but if there was, he would have a warranty case




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], eSpinoza, Google Adsense [Bot], LawHammer, nunumaster, rockosmodernlife, shineoncrazydiamond and 12 guests